Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Have not seen this crop up yet but in everyone else's opinion does "remove from play" trigger the Tervigon to blow up gants around it?

Playing it we went with no but I would like to see the general opinion.

Clay Williams wrote:Have not seen this crop up yet but in everyone else's opinion does "remove from play" trigger the Tervigon to blow up gants around it?

Playing it we went with no but I would like to see the general opinion.

I would actually say yes. But then again, "Slain" is never defined, so technically it never happens.

Another grey area then?

* shakes head *

*facepalm*

Well I would say no,
Since slain is to die, not to disappear, since you can assume that he is still alive just removed from combat by the effect,

Contract Law 101, Common Usage of words in a contract document, "Slain" would be easily defined and anyone saying otherwise would be thrown out of court .

The words "there" "in" "next to" "within" are all terms used by the BRB but which are not defined explicitly, some understanding of the English language is assumed otherwise the rulebook itself cannot techincally be used on those grounds. Also such phrases as "place the model" (how? with hands or with feet? It's not explicitly expressed so cannot actually happen") All said with a good pinch of salt and a smile

I would say no to Jaws and in extension to Stasis. While it may seem silly, the distinct lack of "wounds" dealt, lends itself to the model not really dying.

Sure a great chasm has opened up under the Tervigon and he is removed from play, but that could just as easily represent it falling down said chasm, not dying, but no longer being able to affect the game.

Contract Law 101, Common Usage of words in a contract document, "Slain" would be easily defined and anyone saying otherwise would be thrown out of court .

The words "there" "in" "next to" "within" are all terms used by the BRB but which are not defined explicitly, some understanding of the English language is assumed otherwise the rulebook itself cannot techincally be used on those grounds. Also such phrases as "place the model" (how? with hands or with feet? It's not explicitly expressed so cannot actually happen") All said with a good pinch of salt and a smile

The problem is that dead is not soemthing that is really defined in the rules. A model that takes all it's wounds is removed but not necessarily dead. Even instant death does not preclude a model from surviving the encounter as indeed all named characters are assumed to do so even in this event (I believe though this part may not be RAW). Hence why it would never happen becuase there is no circumstance when you could claim with certainty that the model was infact dead if you see what I mean (except potentially in the case of Instant death)?

I am just thinking here, but wasn't there something actually in the BrB that states while a model loses all his wounds that doesn't necessarily mean he is dead, just that he cannot continue to fight. I will have to look when I get home.

Also, doesn't GW use the wording of casualties a lot? A combat casualty just aren't those that are killed, but also wounded unable to continue combat.

Clay Williams wrote:Have not seen this crop up yet but in everyone else's opinion does "remove from play" trigger the Tervigon to blow up gants around it?

Playing it we went with no but I would like to see the general opinion.

It seems that RAW would have fuzzy wording.

How I'll play it: If it's off the board for the rest of the game, then the special rule will activate.

Brother Ramses wrote:I am just thinking here, but wasn't there something actually in the BrB that states while a model loses all his wounds that doesn't necessarily mean he is dead, just that he cannot continue to fight. I will have to look when I get home.

Also, doesn't GW use the wording of casualties a lot? A combat casualty just aren't those that are killed, but also wounded unable to continue combat.

That was 4th edtion. I don't remember reading that in 5th edtion. If you do find it, please let me know so I can double check as well. It's always a pet peeve of mine, when someone said my mini's die. I say no they are just unconsious

Lul this ain't MTG. The tervie does not go 'into the graveyard from play', nor is 'removed from the game', nor does he(she?) get turned facedown. That's a pretty big RAW stretch.

Actually it says quite clearly that it is removed from play. We figured that an ability like this would say something like "inflicts insta death with no save possible" if it were to function in that manner.

I am trying to think of any other situations in which models removed from play have no bearing on situations such as combat resolution or moral tests. Can anyone else think of an example?

Page 26 of the BRB wrote:Once [a multiple-Wound model] has lost all of its Wounds, it is removed as a casualty.

Oh, so according to this the shot up Tervigon is removed as a casualty and not "slain", and therefore NEVER blows up Termigants! When a model is killed, this is represented by it being removed from play. No matter how badly some don't want Jaws to be extremely effective against the flavour of the month Tervigon spam, that doesn't mean it's not. I really wish GW had standardized it's terminology the way Privateer Press has.

Davor wrote: If you do find it, please let me know so I can double check as well. It's always a pet peeve of mine, when someone said my mini's die. I say no they are just unconsious.

Lookie here:

Page 24 of the BRB wrote:Casualties are not necessarily dead - they may be merely knocked unconcious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some other way.

I'm sorry to be the one to inform you that by RAW he has as much claim to your models being killed as you do to them being merely incapacitated. A carnifex kicking a space marine captain across the room and knocking him out instead of simply biting him in half is a little too 'Saturday Morning Cartoons' for me, I'm afraid

Sorry defenestrator, not looking for biased opinions.

I think we can conclude this already with the knowledge of shoddy wording and leave it down to opinion of the players.

Unless the FAQ council is willing to add this one to the books. Even though I sometimes do no agree with the FAQ council I will use those rulings because it gives the majority of players a base to play by.

The Defenestrator wrote:

Page 26 of the BRB wrote:Once [a multiple-Wound model] has lost all of its Wounds, it is removed as a casualty.

Oh, so according to this the shot up Tervigon is removed as a casualty and not "slain", and therefore NEVER blows up Termigants! When a model is killed, this is represented by it being removed from play. No matter how badly some don't want Jaws to be extremely effective against the flavour of the month Tervigon spam, that doesn't mean it's not. I really wish GW had standardized it's terminology the way Privateer Press has.

Davor wrote: If you do find it, please let me know so I can double check as well. It's always a pet peeve of mine, when someone said my mini's die. I say no they are just unconsious.

Lookie here:

Page 24 of the BRB wrote:Casualties are not necessarily dead - they may be merely knocked unconcious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some other way.

I'm sorry to be the one to inform you that by RAW he has as much claim to your models being killed as you do to them being merely incapacitated. A carnifex kicking a space marine captain across the room and knocking him out instead of simply biting him in half is a little too 'Saturday Morning Cartoons' for me, I'm afraid

Without so much anger...lol.

The question is in regard to Jaws whose rules do not say anything about wounds lost, JUST that if the model fails the initiative test, he is removed from play.

So while a tervigon that is removed from play via Jaws or say Lukas stasis bomb would not explode the gaunts, a tervigon that lost all his wounds would blow up.

Would the Tervigon be coulded as a kill point? If yes then it's counted as dead in my opinion.

There are a few things in-game not dead that can be counted as kill points. The mentioned stasis field, models in reserve at the end of the game, Lone Wolves....

I appologize, anger wasn't my intent. A smidge of derision perhaps, but that's all; I promise I wasn't aware playing neither army made my opinion biased. I just think claiming 'slain' is not synonymous with 'removed from play' is fairly shakey logic. Losing all your wounds is simply one method by which a model is removed from play.

Oh, and reserves at the end of the game *count* as destroyed, which is why they grant KP.

jbunny wrote:Would the Tervigon be coulded as a kill point? If yes then it's counted as dead in my opinion.

The Defenstrator wrote:

Page 26 of the BRB wrote:
Once [a multiple-Wound model] has lost all of its Wounds, it is removed as a casualty.

Oh, so according to this the shot up Tervigon is removed as a casualty and not "slain", and therefore NEVER blows up Termigants! When a model is killed, this is represented by it being removed from play. No matter how badly some don't want Jaws to be extremely effective against the flavour of the month Tervigon spam, that doesn't mean it's not. I really wish GW had standardized it's terminology the way Privateer Press has.

Since this thread is asking for opinions it is my opinion that the above opinions are rock solid.

Clay Williams wrote:Sorry defenestrator, not looking for biased opinions.

Good luck! Everyone's opinion is bias.

As a Space Wolf and Nid player, I would allow the Tervigon to blow up and kill termagants if I killed my own Tervigon with my own Rune Priest using Jaws of the Awesome Wolf

Che-Vito wrote:

Clay Williams wrote:Have not seen this crop up yet but in everyone else's opinion does "remove from play" trigger the Tervigon to blow up gants around it?

Playing it we went with no but I would like to see the general opinion.

It seems that RAW would have fuzzy wording.

How I'll play it: If it's off the board for the rest of the game, then the special rule will activate.

This is what would make sense. Considering models that are in your army that a) never make it to the board. or b) are removed from play. are counted as casualties for victory conditions at the end of the game...

So the explosion happens at the end of the game?

It’s dead. The core rules make clear that a model being killed/removed from play can represent a number of different things per the fluff. But the simple fact is that the model is gone, and it’s not gone into reserve; he’s never coming back. While GW’s usual shoddy, inconsistent writing prevents it from being as obvious as it should be, I’m comfortable saying that Jaws = dead, and that’s what you’ll see pretty much anyone play, unless they’re deliberately parsing Jaws to try to gain an easter-egg advantage.

This came up in our gaming group's discussion last weekend.

We decided, Termigants like hanging out with the Tervigon as it's kind of a big brother... or mother to the termigants. If the Tervigon abandons the lil guys, they get pissed.

Thus, removed from play, croaked, lost all of its wounds, stasis from Space Wolf, slain, passed out, taking an extended hiatus for the duration of the battle, or otherwised not participating in the game any longer will equate to Termigaunts getting pissed off and suffering the effects of losing the Tervigon.

We also determined that the relative impact of the loss over multiple games across multiple weekends is of relatively minimal concern to the Tyranid player.

*For our group*, this one is just too easy.

Tac

Looks like the majority is leaning towards "blow'd up" now.

I will play it that way.

I do not own a tervigon army, but I do build lists out of the new books when they come out and do research on the heavy tournament hitters. This way our tournament gaming group does not get thrown any surprizes when we go out and about.